Appreciation of Lee Friedlander

[cliveh]

I thought I would start a thread about Lee Friedlander, as I know a lot of Americans like him. I find his images interesting, but his compositions are not really my cup of tea. Please convince me otherwise, or not.

 

[Pieter12]

You like him or you don't. It's up to you.

 

[pentaxuser]

I could be wrong but I suspect that Clive is hoping to start a kind of what might be termed a form of academic tutorial in which the ensuing discussion covers by process of debate all the plus and minus points of Lee Friedlander

In theory all participants with opposing views in such a discussion gain insights that they had overlooked of the man and his work. A bit like Jake LaMotta's and Sugar Ray's fights which led to a greater depth of discovery of the other opponent in the 1940s

pentaxuser

 

[AnselMortensen]

I find Friedlander's images to be almost instantly recognizable, due to the use if a dividing element near the center of the frame, as well as his sense of humor.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Even though I was exploring similar subject matter at the time (fringe urban landscape), I will admit, when I first saw them I did not like Lee Friedlander's photos very much, at all. My Medium Format Photography professor assigned me the task of presenting his work to the class, so I checked out half-a-dozen Friedlander books at the university library, and spent some time with them.

After a while, I slowly came around to a greater appreciation, but not without some reservations. I think some (much?) of his work is in jest, a middle finger to the fine art photo world. I am not saying that is a bad thing; sombody has to do it.

Of the several Friedlander books I have seen, my least favorite was a book of self portraits -- I forget which one (there are several). My most favorite Friedlander book is Staglieno, which was quite different from his urban street-style stuff.

 

[Pieter12]

For me, to better appreciate Friedlander, pick up America By Car and Western Landscapes. Probably his most accessible and closest to conventional aesthetics. For a good overview of his oeuvre, Lee Friedlander Framed curated by Joel Cohen is a good start.

 

[logan2z]

For me, to better appreciate Friedlander, pick up America By Car and Western Landscapes. Probably his most accessible and closest to conventional aesthetics. For a good overview of his oeuvre, Lee Friedlander Framed curated by Joel Cohen is a good start.

Friedlander has an incredibly diverse oeuvre. He's done pretty much everything, including street, portraits, nudes, natural landscapes, urban landscapes, still life, architecture, documentary, etc. I don't think he's left any stone unturned.

Besides Western Landscapes, check out Cherry Blossom Time in Japan, Apples and Olives, Flowers and Trees, The Desert Seen and Frederick Law Olmsted Landscapes for other examples of his landscape photography.

American by Car is a great recommendation. I'd also check out The New Cars 1964, a fairly obscure title but one of my favorites, and still available brand new.

Framed is another great recommendation. For a more comprehensive survey of his career, track down a copy of the huge MoMA retrospective titled Friedlander. It's big and it's expensive these days, but an amazing overview of Friedlander's career up to 2005. There was another large survey published by Fundación Mapfre on the occasion of the 2021 retrospective in Spain. It can still be found, but it's become a little pricey as well.

If you like Jazz photography, check out American Musicians. A great collection of Friedlander's photographs for '50s and '60s jazz record covers. This may be the only published collection of Friedlander's photography in color. Used copies of the book are readily available and are surprisingly inexpensive.

I'd also recommend checking out Maria (tender portraits of Friedlander's wife), The American Monument, Letters from the People, Architectural America and The Little Screens. All great work and highly accessible, IMO.

 

[danmouer]

I have always been a Friedlander fan, and his work has often influenced my own. The attached is just one example from a photo show and subsequent book I did called Café Life. I’m sure Lee F was looking over my shoulder.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

but his compositions are not really my cup of tea. Please convince me otherwise, or not.

The world is uncomposed. It is messy and chaotic. It's made of a bunch of things that have nothing to do one with the other. It makes no sense.

When we photograph, we "compose" in order to establish relationships that in real life do not exist. Friedlander doesn't do that. And he doesn't pick a special moment in time. He picks a moment in time that can be any moment in time, because life is made of a whole bunch of non-significant moments stiched together.

And he's totally unsentimental about it all. And he has humour — not unlike Martin Parr, even though their focus is different, he delects in observing the absurdity of how we live.

I really like his photography. I find it totally liberating.

And I admire it. Try to imitate Friedlander thinking it's easy, and you quickly realize that not only is there great art and craft behind this, there is also a way of looking at the world that cannot be transposed.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

 

[Alex Benjamin]

 

[Alex Benjamin]

It's interesting to compare Friedlander's and Winogrand's relationship with the American vernacular landscape. In Winogrand, you sense people are the subject and the vernacular landscape is the scenery in which they evolve; with Friedlander, it's the opposite: the vernacular landscape is the subject and people are just another element of it, much in the same way as are cars or billboards.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

 

[MattKing]

The world is uncomposed. It is messy and chaotic. It's made of a bunch of things that have nothing to do one with the other. It makes no sense.

I've been told that this helps explains driving a car in Montreal.
Perhaps I've been mis-informed?

 

[MattKing]

It's interesting to compare Friedlander's and Winogrand's relationship with the American vernacular landscape. In Winogrand, you sense people are the subject and the vernacular landscape is the scenery in which they evolve; with Friedlander, it's the opposite: the vernacular landscape is the subject and people are just another element of it, much in the same way as are cars or billboards.

And Herzog hops back and forth:

 

[Alex Benjamin]

And Herzog hops back and forth:
View attachment 414495

View attachment 414496

Well seen, Matt !

 

[Ben 4]

Thanks for all four of those, Alex. The last is a particular favorite.

 

[DREW WILEY]

His pictures might be cerebrally stimulating; but they certainly aren't beautiful. I'd call them more artsy obnoxious, probably deliberately so. "Breaking the rules" is just too apparent for me: I prefer more sleight of hand. Same reason I don't like "busy" Jazz :
just too nervous.

Yeah, I'm aware of his Gettysburg pictures too, which some call lovely; but even in them there's a lack of finesse which I find annoying.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I've been told that this helps explains driving a car in Montreal.
Perhaps I've been mis-informed?

You're well informed.

And one just needs to take a look at direction signs to figure out why...

 

[Don_ih]

they certainly aren't beautiful

Beauty has been the albatross of art for eons.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

His pictures might be cerebrally stimulating

I find photography to be intellectually stimulating, but Friedlander's photos not so much. Cerebral pleasure has nothing to do with the reason I like many of them, or him as a photographer.

they certainly aren't beautiful

No they're not. Neither is the world, generally speaking. That's one thing I like about Friedlander: he looks at the world with a camera the way I look at the world without a camera.

But he sees much more funny things than I do.

And this only applies to most of his so-called street photography. There are some beautiful landscapes, and, as @logan2z mentioned, his jazz photos are stunning.

there's a lack of finesse which I find annoying

I agree that there is a lack of finesse in some stuff — I get annoyed by his constant intrusion into the photograph —, but again, he shot so many different subjects that it's impossible to generalize. His portraits, for example, have a lot of finesse, in that they ring true, honest and natural.

Garry and Melissa Winongrand, Los Angeles, 1984

 

[logan2z]

His pictures might be cerebrally stimulating; but they certainly aren't beautiful. I'd call them more artsy obnoxious, probably deliberately so.

@DREW WILEY look a little deeper. I love Friedlander's quirky/creative framing and his wry sense of humor, but there is a lot more to his oeuvre than that...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Lee Friedlander, Yosemite

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Could this be more Miles...

 

[Alex Benjamin]